Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 11/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Paying people to write articles would be a whole
new ballgame, and
probably very un-wiki.. There would be no more effective way of
creating a class of vested interests with certain visions of how they
want the project to look. We all want better coverage, but at what cost?
Don't be so foolish to deny that there are already people being paid
to edit...
It would be generally unsound for me to try to prove that something like
that doesn't happen, but I am probably safe to say that it doesn't
happen on any kind of large public scale. Nevertheless whether
something is happening, and the implications of it happening are two
separate issues.
The question in my mind is: Will more people be paid to
advance the
public good in cooperation with the larger community of contributors,
or will more people be paid to advance private interests in opposition
and through subverison of the communities interests.
Private payments in support of private interests are less dangerous than
direct subsidies from Wikimedia. We know they are outsiders. Direct
payment can too easily suggest that the payee has the WMF stamp of
approval, or somehow states the "official" POV for his selected topics.
Done right, I think such an adventure could do a lot to
strengthen our
community and leave us better prepared to cope with the results of
people paid to edit for less noble goals.
More than likely it will strenghthen the community in opposition to the
mercenaries.
At least were we to embark on that particular journey
we would do with
sensitivity and understanding of the risks. In no way should any such
measure be itself used as a mechanism for control. The purpose of paid
writers would be .. to write. And any such arrangement should be
structured to avoid the creation of such interests. For example, it
would be reasonable that you get paid just as equally if the community
goes and removes your work.
These would all be important considerations. Preventing the rise of
vested and controlling interests would require great insight.
Time-limited (perhaps three months), non-renewable contracts could be a
factor.
You didn't elaborate much on your position, but I
don't buy yet your
claim of vested interests. Who cares more about controlling
Wikipedia? Some nationalist who spends his every free moment working
without pay to shape Wikipedias coverage, or some working person
punching a time clock and writing a bunch of material selected by
someone else?
Those nationalists are out there where you can watch them. Vested
interests are a kind of dependancy relationship. Maintaining the status
quo allows them to collect dividends in whatever form may be relevant.
A regular paycheque is one form of such dividend. Volunteers can also
become dependent on paid staff to carry out certain tasks to the point
that some tasks are set-aside because there is paid staff to do them.
Ec